Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Admin

Thoughts About Munns' Book - " When Roger Met Patty " (2)

Recommended Posts

Bill

Thank you.

 

:)

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JustCurious

Kitakaze, I give you credit for being a great fisherman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faenor

To me the book felt like another voice in the chorus of why the pgf is real. Every bigfoot documentary has a section with experts proclaiming why the film can't be a hoax. It's all qualitative assessment. What's needed is some definitive proof. Figure out the exact size of the head and prove a human head can't fit inside. Or some other quantitave bit of data that can't be refuted which could demonstrate a suit was not involved. Yea there's lots of intriguing bits about the film presented by munns but not enough yet to climb over the nagging mountain of doubt associated with bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

""but not enough yet to climb over the nagging mountain of doubt associated with bigfoot.""

 

​But that is the point. The people who tend to reject the PGF are generally the ones who reject bigfoot so they are coming at it from a closed mindset. They already have a preconceived notion. That is, the PGF can't be real because bigfoot doesn't exist. It's impossible for them to get over that starting point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Three. ....... 

 

 

 Good post there Trog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

To me the book felt like another voice in the chorus of why the pgf is real. Every bigfoot documentary has a section with experts proclaiming why the film can't be a hoax. It's all qualitative assessment. What's needed is some definitive proof. Figure out the exact size of the head and prove a human head can't fit inside. Or some other quantitave bit of data that can't be refuted which could demonstrate a suit was not involved. Yea there's lots of intriguing bits about the film presented by munns but not enough yet to climb over the nagging mountain of doubt associated with bigfoot.

 

I understand your point, but there is other evidence that points away from the film beig a hoax. When I mentioned the observations of Donskoy - it was to show there is information in the film to help people get over that mountain.     :)

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

 The people who tend to reject the PGF are generally the ones who reject bigfoot so they are coming at it from a closed mindset. They already have a preconceived notion. That is, the PGF can't be real because bigfoot doesn't exist. It's impossible for them to get over that starting point.

 

That sums it up well.  Well said.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

""but not enough yet to climb over the nagging mountain of doubt associated with bigfoot.""

 

​But that is the point. The people who tend to reject the PGF are generally the ones who reject bigfoot so they are coming at it from a closed mindset. They already have a preconceived notion. That is, the PGF can't be real because bigfoot doesn't exist. It's impossible for them to get over that starting point.

 

Right.  There is no objection to the evidence that does not have as its utter and complete foundation "sasquatch can't be real, therefore..."  This is called begging the question, and is fatal in science.  All one needs to know that the mainstream isn't paying attention is that they don't see this and put it front and center.

 

Three.  

 

Prior to reading the book, and what few archived pieces of Mssr. Munns' research I could find online, I was very 50/50 on the film.  I appreciate the detailed, step-by-step analysis Bill did in that book and it has largely moved me to believe that the film is of a living, breathing Bigfoot.  I'll leave open a 2% chance that the film is the Blair Witch Project of its day and that Roger Patterson is the absolute luckiest hoaxer ever who bought an off-the-shelf custome, found a some guy (not necessarily Heironononomus) just fat enough to give the suit musculature and managed to trip at just the right time to make the rilm a little more believable and oh by the way, left a perfectly paperless trail so that his hoax could never be tracked back to him w/certitude.

 

Nothing anyone knows about Patterson makes this reasonable.  It's like postuating that a cocktail waitress was behind the D-Day invasion.

 

There is a jury instruction that bears repeating (although time and a general lack of sobriety blurs my memory) regarding reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt does not means some fanciful flight of imagination or a convoluted theory.  Just because one can speculate on an incredible string of events to create an alternative explanation does not mean that there is reasonable doubt.

 

Right.  If this is a jury trial, it's over, 47 years ago.  The problem is, the film has been poisoned by the a priori attitdudes of people not wearing their science hats, just waving their degrees in the air and yelling "this thing I'm not looking at seriously can't be real, so it isn't."  In any other field a piece of evidence like that, dovetailing perfectly with the experiences of thousands of reliable observers, would have locked it up.  And the evidence has only grown exponentially since.

 

I understand your point, but there is other evidence that points away from the film beig a hoax. When I mentioned the observations of Donskoy - it was to show there is information in the film to help people get over that mountain.     :)

 

Right.  And the skeptics haven't looked at it or thought about it, because "bigfoot can't be real, therefore..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Kit how did brent d skype you? Didnt he say he couldnt take pictures because of the old phone he had? He went and bought a new phone just to skype some guy he doesnt even know, in which he will gain nothing from? Riiight...

Just an explanation of how doing meticulous setups of multiple takes with an actor in a Bigfoot suit in a national forest is beneficial to a hoax scenario rather than doing it as quickly as possible would be a great help.-Kitakaze

They could of rehearsed anywhere kit..away from anyone to bust them ..if iy was faked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

There is quite a bit of incoherency in there. 

 

BrentD's finding the suit was in 2008. My looking for Brent was no until years later, plenty of time in which to acquire a new phone, but moot because it is you making the assumption Brent was the one who showed me the suit which he originally found unintentionally. It was not BrentD, whose only time ever seeing the suit was as a service technician.


 

Just an explanation of how doing meticulous setups of multiple takes with an actor in a Bigfoot suit in a national forest is beneficial to a hoax scenario rather than doing it as quickly as possible would be a great help.-Kitakaze

 


They could of rehearsed anywhere kit..away from anyone to bust them ..if iy was faked

 

Which is exactly what Bob Heironimus reported - rehearsing at the privacy of Patterson's home in the Ahtanum Valley.

 

Filmed rehearsals require that film to be developed which then blows your fleeting Bigfoot encounter story, unless you actually believe any of the adult film developer meme nonsense, and good luck sourcing that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

BrentD's finding the suit was in 2008. My looking for Brent was not until years later, plenty of time in which to acquire a new phone, but moot because it is you making the assumption Brent was the one who showed me the suit which he originally found unintentionally. It was not BrentD,

 

 

So, according to kit's story....there have been 3 people who could have saved images of "the Patty suit"...but didn't.....BrentD....some other person who "sent a video to kit via Skype"....and kit himself.

 

And, of course....none of the three can get back into Al's, to take a picture of "the suit".

 

 

And nobody has ever heard kit's "recorded confession", either. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Kit post some stuff by effects artist Chris Walas.

Does anyone know if the movie about the Yaren (Chinese bigfoot) featuring Walas work is out yet? Apparently walas does the Yaren effects in this movie from 2014 or 2015. Anyone heard anything?

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

So somebody else skyped some guy (you) they dont even know The Patty suit , gaining nothing, or are you saying whoever Skyped the suit was a person close to you, that you trust. Surely you wouldnt just flat out accept it is true coming from a stranger?

And if it was someone close or a friend, surely you would of knew ahead of time about them showing you the suit. They wouldnt skype you it out of the blue. Knowing you, you'd figure out a way to get pictures for proof to all the die hard PGF believers at BFF. Why not send pics to you after the skype call via text? Why didnt you request pics? I find it hard to believe you'd miss a chance like that for proof. The fact there are no pictures tells me there was no skype call.

Sorry for off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The person was neither a close friend nor a stranger to me. It was by their relationship to the owner of the suit that I accepted them as being legitimate. 

 

If I would not accept a poor quality image of unknown provenance as proof of Bigfoot, why would I expect fundamentalist PGF worshippers to accept the same for a suit that would undermine the idol of their belief? As I have said in the past, establishing that a suit was there at all to be dealt with was the purpose so as to try and arrange personal access to it in order to document it for a documentary.

 

It's no better than an alleged Bigfoot sighting and you are more than justified to dismiss it as such. 

 

 

 

It's not an omission. I remember you asking before and I'm quite sure I answered. I'll just answer again rather than dig it up.

 

My review of Bill's book directly addresses the conclusions that he makes point by point based on the merits of each individually. Saying I have seen the suit within the context of that review is as much an unverified claim as anything I could possibly object to regarding Bigfoot. I have no direct access to the suit and at the time of the review no way to arrange it under current circumstances. The only viewing I had of the suit was years ago on a Docomo smartphone via Skype and were I to try, I had no knowledge at the time how one might record such a call. The purpose at the time was to try and establish further contact in hopes of getting access to the suit in person to document it.

 

That is a claim that should be categorically dismissed without reliable evidence. I do not think the rule somehow applies differently to skeptics. I had a very similar experience to this when I first sought out personal contact with Bob Heironimus, which took major effort on my part. I similarly can not prove I have actually had any personal interviews or even contact with Bob Heironimus. At the time I documented everything with a phone, a pen and a notepad. All the work I did in that phase of the documentary project, the interviews, establishing what and where BrentD saw what he saw was to lay down the ground work for the actual filming. All interviews that I had filmed at that point were done in Victoria, BC Canada.

 

So I would ask you, in a formal written review of Bill's book, how would it be of any help to include a claim that I could not verify, something which Bill and I had tried personally between us to make possible?

 

Bill's book, specifically his end conclusions for the veracity of the PGF is what I focused on in that review.

 

Kit post some stuff by effects artist Chris Walas.

Does anyone know if the movie about the Yaren (Chinese bigfoot) featuring Walas work is out yet? Apparently walas does the Yaren effects in this movie from 2014 or 2015. Anyone heard anything?

Backdoc

 

Yeren.

 

The film is called Journey to the Forbidden Valley and is not yet released. The release date is slated for June 1, 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...